Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 December 19

December 19
This is a list of redirects that have been proposed for deletion or other action on December 19, 2013.

Ultimate mortal kombat 2



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. --BDD (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Ultimate mortal kombat 2 → Mortal Kombat II (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

There never was and never will be a game by this title. There's no reason to assume that people will get the titles Mortal Kombat II and Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 mixed-up like this; when searching it, they may want one or the other, but we can't have a redirect going two places and we can never be sure which one is intended by a search term like this. Neither game deserves to have this redirect any more than the other. This is the most bizarre redirect I've ever seen.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  06:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, unlikely and ambiguous misnomer. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 10:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. The existence of "Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3" means that a search for "Ultimate Mortal Kombat 2" is entirely logical, for example if someone knows of the third game and wants to find out about the previous edition. It is possible that they are actually searching for the third game, but that to me seems less likely and can be accommodated perfectly by the use of a hatnote. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * So we can just have a redirect for every possible way people can confuse titles? That makes no sense. We can't say for certain whether they mean one thing more than the other. That would be like saying we should have a redirect for Lullabies for the Deaf, because someone might confuse Songs for the Deaf with the album that came after it, Lullabies to Paralyze; we don't know for certain which one they were really looking for. Which one deserves to have the redirect point to it, since redirects can only have one target?  Lazy Bastard  Guy  22:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Further, how do we know they are referring to one of the two existing games? They could be referring to one they exists and then get confused when they don't find it because it doesn't.  Lazy  Bastard  Guy  23:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * There is a massive difference between looking for "Title n-1" given the existence of "title n" (where n >=2) and confusing titles without numbers in, but all should be considered on individual merits - if the searched for title doesn't exist but there is a suitable article to redirect to then we should have a redirect. As for your second point, we can't know what they are looking for but we can reasonably assume that most people searching for this title are looking for one of these two games, if they aren't then they will be helped more by the destination article and its links to Mortal Kombat and the inclusion of the template that they will by either a page of search results (which cannot be guaranteed to be relevant), an invitation to search or an invitation to start an article (which is seen depends on the method they used to reach the page, and possibly things like the whether they are logged in and/or blocked). Thryduulf (talk) 23:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing back for the sake of bickering, but first of all, which article is "[the] suitable article to redirect to"? It can't be said for certain. There could be just as much a case for it redirecting to one of the two topics as the other, and people can therefore freely change it if they feel a certain way. That just begs for edit warring. Even if it doesn't happen, it still represents a page whose content isn't guaranteed to be one thing or another, which is not helpful and very counterproductive. It would be like an article whose contents can change purely on a user's whim, and there's no reason to make them stop. It also doesn't help new readers who might come to depend on these redirects; better not to have them than leave them this open-ended.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  23:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I believe that the current target is the most likely of the two, for the reasons given in my first comment, but those looking for the other will be served by a hatnote. Anyone is of course free to disagree, but it is most helpful if they say why so that others can see whether they agree or not and the closer can more easily weigh the opinions. I believe, for the reasons given upthread, that almost everyone using this redirect will be looking for one of these two articles, if we redirect the title to the one most people are looking for then most readers get where they want without any extra cliking and almost all the rest will get there with a simple quick click on the hatnote link. Another viable option would be for a dab page, but then nobody can get where they want without a click, so it is less useful. Deleting it means that nobody gets where they want without an unknown number of clicks, at least one but potentially lots more if they don't see relevant search results immediately. Assume good faith of editors. There is no history of edit warring over this redirect, so there is no reason to base any judgement on the expectation of some in the future. Retargetting redirects should only be done when the new target is clearly better, because as you note it can be disruptive, which is why borderline cases should (and normally are) discussed first. However, retargetting a redirect is significantly less disruptive than deleting one, which is why we delete redirects only when this is less harmful than keeping them. There is no evidence presented here, or that I've found elsewhere, that this redirect is harmful or that deleting will bring any benefits. Thryduulf (talk) 00:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Likewise, there is no evidence that one subject warrants being targeted by this redirect more than the other. I find it logical that people may consider Ultimate Mortal Kombat to be the series, and therefore may think there is indeed a UMK2 (which is the point you've been making, if I am not mistaken). However, the logic ends there: When it comes down to it, UMK2, by this logic, refers to the game that comes immediately before UMK3... which is Mortal Kombat 3. If anything, it should redirect there, but the title does not suggest to. So after that it is little more than a portmanteau of two topics that do have articles, and again neither one is more worthy of being the target of the redirect than the other. I ran a search for "ultimate mortal kombat 4" just to see what would come up, and the main article for the series was the third result. Plenty of other MK-related topics were among the top hits, and I find it likely a user who is unfamiliar would be able to click on any one of those and go from there. That's how I got started, after all.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  02:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Never existed as a game. The MKII page doesn't mention an "Ultimate Mortal Kombat 2". Deleting this will actually be helpful, because it will tell our readers correctly that it does not exist.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 22:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Namrata Thapa



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was delete. WJBscribe (talk) 01:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Namrata Thapa → Yahaaan Main Ghar Ghar Kheli (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Pages that link here do not discuss about the article it redirects to. More importantly, this person might dot be notable. TheChampionMan1234 06:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete, linked article does not discuss this person and merely mentions she stars in a television program. It describes her character, but not the actress herself.  Lazy Bastard  Guy  23:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - there are limited occasions where a redirection to a character is appropriate, primarily where the actor is nn and is only or principally associated with a single role. Looking here this actress has had a number of film roles so the redirect is inappropriate. The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Sibir (nuclear icebreaker)



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was converted to article so no longer within the scope of RfD. Anyone can nominate the article at AfD if they so wish. Thryduulf (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Sibir (nuclear icebreaker) → Sibir (icebreaker) (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Does not appear to be correct; the target is about a steamship icebreaker built in the 1930s. According to this page, the nuclear icebreaker Sibir was built between 1971 and 1992. The steamship icebreaker Sibir, according to our article, was broken up in 1973. We don't seem to have an article to retarget this to, so I think R5 applies. —/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 04:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Withdraw: I've now created a (sourced, illustrated) stub at Sibir (nuclear icebreaker), with hatnotes linking to and from the 1938 non-nuclear ship. Seemed the best solution! Pam  D  08:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.

Wikipedia:Muslim Awards



 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more redirects. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the redirect's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was speedy delete per criterion G6 which covers redirects created by correcting a page move to the wrong namespace. Thryduulf (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Muslim Awards → Muslim Awards (links to redirect • [ history] • )     [ Closure: [ keep]/[ delete] ]

Unneeded redirect from WP: to main, created by novice's clumsy page moving. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 00:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as XNR.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.